As CPAs, we live, maybe even thrive, in a world of rules. Rules provide important boundaries on how to do things and get the “right” answer, but rules can also be negative. Rules can slow down your business; they can prevent better customer experiences and they can drive away great employees who don’t want to deal with needless directives. Because CPAs are so rules oriented, we can have difficulty seeing rules that are causing problems, especially when those rules are unwritten. But if you’re willing to take a chance, you may find a few rules that are worth getting rid of, if you ask the people who work in your organization. Here are three steps you can take to come up with a rule or two to get rid of:

  1. Identify regulations vs. rules
  2. Focus on what you can control
  3. Avoid the complaint session

You need to start out by making it clear that we can only get rid of rules we have put in place as a business. There may be accounting standards or IRS regulations that we all hate, but those are outside of our ability to change. Get the team focused on rules created within the company, not from the government or other regulatory bodies.

Even if you get the team focused on company-made rules, there still may be many rules you can’t control. If you are the CFO, your span of control is pretty large, but if you are a department head, the span of control decreases. If you are looking to make changes, help define the scope of rules that could be subject to change.

Finally, in order to avoid turning the elimination of rules into the same old gripe session, focus your team on an important question: “What do you want?” Instead of griping about a rule, get them focused on the solution. What should change? How should the rule be eliminated? What would processes be like if the rule was eliminated? How would that be better?

As CPAs, it might seem a little scary to go about eliminating rules, but think of eliminating rules this way. In a financial report, we focus on material items rather than spend time equally on all items because the material items are what matter. We should take the same approach to rules. Which ones are “material,” that is really matter, and which ones are “immaterial,” and don’t really make a difference. If a rule doesn’t make a difference, why have it in the first place?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s